Skip to main content

Down and Out with Lieberman-Warner

harry-reid The Senate failed to proceed with the Climate Security Act (S. 3036), legislation intended to develop a cap-and-trade system to substantially reduce carbon emissions. The method would allow entities with carbon-emitting sources to upgrade facilities or adopt new and improved technologies to contain emissions. After a motion to close debate failed, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pulled the bill and moved on to other business, essentially ending further consideration of the bill in the current session.

The bill, sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.), limits emissions from coal-burning power plants and factories, natural gas processors and importers, petroleum refiners and importers, and large industrials. In essence, it restricts the supply of fossil fuels in order to favor conservation and non-carbon-emitting energy sources, including nuclear energy.

Environmental Protection Agency analyses of the bill “demonstrate the importance of key enabling technologies, specifically [carbon capture and sequestration] and nuclear power.”

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who does not support the bill, asserted that, “There can be a relationship between CO2 and a warming condition, but it’s not major.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who managed the bill on the Senate floor last week, said the legislation is “about saving us. It’s about saving our future. It’s about saving the life on planet Earth. And, yes, it is about saving God’s creatures.”

A cap-and-trade regime creates an emission limit, or cap, in an amount initially 4 percent below the estimated carbon emissions produced in 2005. Companies that adopt technologies that reduce their carbon emissions can sell, or “trade,” their excess allowance on the open market to companies that cannot remain within the level set by their caps.

The cap adjusts downward by about 2 percent each year after 2012. Reductions would reach about 19 percent by 2020 and, ultimately, 71 percent by 2050. The annual adjustment increases the value of the carbon allowances, providing companies with an incentive to reduce their emissions to profit from the allowances they can then sell.

Debate halted Wednesday when Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) requested that the full text of the 456-page bill be read aloud on the Senate floor. McConnell said his request was a protest over Senate inaction on President Bush’s judicial nominees. Debate resumed Thursday.

The bill faces opposition from the White House. The Bush administration said the bill could trade a possible ecological disaster for a likely economic one. “S. 3036 is likely to severely damage the economy and drive jobs overseas,” the administration’s statement said. “As an example, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration have estimated, respectively, that the bill as reported could reduce U.S. gross domestic product by as much as 7 percent (over $2.8 trillion) in 2050, and reduce U.S. manufacturing output by almost 10 percent in 2030—before even half of the bill’s required reductions have taken effect.”

The strong objections from the Bush administration led some key senators to conclude that the debate and the bill’s proposed amendments could provide a framework that allows its sponsors to reintroduce it next year after a new president is elected.

“However far we take it, it is very important to start now,” said Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The presumptive nominees of both major parties, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), support the concept of cap-and-trade, with Obama stating he would favor more steeply incremented caps. He also prefers an auction for all carbon permits, creating in effect a carbon tax. McCain stresses the “pursuit of alternatives to carbon-based fuels” and said the cap-and-trade system favors the creation or accelerated use of technologies that can contain emissions. Among these technologies, McCain includes nuclear energy, carbon capture and sequestration and battery development.

This is original reporting and will appear in slightly different form in Nuclear Energy Overview, NEI's weekly member newsletter.

Picture of Harry Reid. This bill will likely be back in revised form in the next session of Congress. But it appears our week of Lieberman-Warner was, this time, really just a week.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I think it was a mistake where you wrote

Harry Reid (R-N.M.)

He's Democrat, right?

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…